But it is important that the case against Lord Coe should also be heard. We can all agree that he was a great athlete, and that he did a superb job arranging the Olympics in 2012.

There are, however, two basic problems. The first is Lord Coe’s political connections. It should be borne in mind that the decision about the next BBC chairman is in reality being made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sajid Javid, the Culture Secretary, is only in the Cabinet because of the personal support he has received from the Chancellor. He knows nothing worthwhile about the arts, let alone broadcasting, and will not lift a finger without the Chancellor’s say-so.

Meanwhile, Lord Coe’s links with George Osborne go back almost 20 years. They worked together in William Hague’s private office between 1997-2001. Coe was chief of staff (and Hague’s judo partner), while Osborne was political secretary and speech-writer. They enjoyed a close working relationship that has endured ever since. I’d guess that the "senior government source" who floated his name for the BBC job was a close ally of Mr Osborne.

The BBC is a great institution; it is part of what Professor David Marquand calls Britain’s "public domain". It should not be the private possession of any political party. I am sympathetic to Conservative criticisms that the BBC has been too biased towards the the Labour Party, the liberal elite, the Left and the European project over the last two decades. But the answer is an independent figure with relevant experience and genuine authority – not a Tory stooge.

There are significant, experienced public figures such as Marjorie Scardino and Robert Winston who do not bring the Tory peer’s political baggage with them, and are far better qualified for the job.

This brings me to the second problem with Lord Coe, which is equally serious. He is a nice and smooth man, but lacks genuine intellect. Bear in mind that the post entirely defeated Chris Patten, who was a very accomplished public figure. There is no reason to suppose that Lord Coe could do any better.

Let’s look at the some of the reasons why Patten failed. He was unable to see through Mark Thompson, the director-general – would Lord Coe have done any better? Patten was unable to challenge the culture of corporate greed at the senior levels of the BBC – would Coe have done any better? When corporate governance broke down over Jimmy Savile, Patten was hopelessly at sea. It would have been the same, only worse, with Coe.

The next chairman will have to fight huge battles around the licence fee; there is now a well orchestrated Right-wing campaign to destroy the BBC altogether. It is also utterly crucial that the World Service is defended.

The next chairman will have to resolve the complex matter (which Chris Patten got so wrong) of whether his job is to defend the BBC to the outside world, or represent the licence fee-payer. I simply don’t believe that Seb Coe is capable of resolving any of this. His appointment would be a disaster.

Chairman of the BBC Trust is a hugely important job. It should never be given to a political crony. Seb Coe is the wrong man for the job.